Apolitical Staples

I don’t agree. All I imagine is a huge cacaphony of special interests voices clamouring for our money. We can make our wishes know the traditional ways, either by voting or by expressing our right to free speech.

In any case, the money should be returned to the taxpayers in the way of tax cuts.

There is no need to discuss how to spend taxes that are not needed, emphasize NEEDED, anything beyond the NEEDS of government is overtaxation and should be returned to the rightfull owners of the money …the taxpayers. Debt reduction should come from the pockets of those that benifited by the creation of the debt…Public servants who’s job creation were the cause of the debt. UIC worked just fine when there was ONE office per Province,Trudeau put an office in every town in Canada and created a 3000% increase in public employees. Why should we of the private sector pay for jobs that were never needed in the first place? Government Employees were given tenure because thier pay was substantialy lower than the private sector, that has now reversed and thier pay is equal or higher than those paying them. We create taxes for needs, not needs for excess taxes, oh wait this is Canada we are talking about so we do create needs(wants) for exccessive taxation….Socialism sucks.

Hear, here, Greg!

The surplus is quite simply overtaxation. It should be a clear sign that the government should be thinking tax cuts. If I showed up at your work place on payday and forcefully made you give me 25% of your pay because I know how to spend it better than you do. What would be your reaction? When the government does this we think it is a good thing. Jack Layton is essentially arguing that he knows how to spend your money better then you do.

Over-taxation…pure and simple.

Cut taxes…the economy will grow and there will be more surpluses.

We don’t need debate on how to spend these surpluses…that is ludicrous. This is not ‘found money’ to be spent on pet projects.

We already have debates on how to spend tax monies…these debates are called elections.

The government should govern…not debate every issue to death.

The government governs by, among other things, debating. I personally think that applying surpluses to our significant national debt is a wise and prudent move, since the reduction in interest payments leads to more room to reduce taxes, but we haven’t had a serious debate on this issue on the Commons’ floor, ever. It would be nice to have one, especially in this minority government situation.

Layton wants the surplus spent on the selfish domestic social programs while the entire planet burns? I thought he was pro-Kyoto!

If we care about the planet, the best solution is to use the entire surplus towards buying Carbon Credits from Russia. We know we’re behind on Chretien’s Kyoto commitment, and that Elizabeth May tells us this is the single most important issue facing the planet and human civilization. The Goracle has warned us on countless occasions that the world has less than 10 years to act or we’re all doomed!

Not only will sending all excess taxes to Russia save the world, but our Northern Comrades could use our cash to finance their military expansion to keep Our True North strong and free of the imperialistic American running dogs!

To echo other commenters, this is reason alone to indicate that our co-called Conservative government should lower taxes. As for the spending of the surplus, we can’t very well expect a tax rebate, but if it is spent on paying down the debt, it will make a hypocrite of our good leader, as he and Mr.Layton criticized the former government for doing exactly that when the Liberals last ran a surplus.

Give it back in the form of gas and booze tax cuts, or, better yet, give the whole 6 billion to me, and I will decide how to dispose of it.

Layton is calling for a parliamentary debate over the surplus … He believes the surplus should be spent on foreign aid, affordable housing, public transit and keeping post-secondary education fees down.

Come out fighting, and let the noisiest special-interest group win.

The people who would benefit from tax rebates are not, by definition, the kind of narcissistic and underemployed whiners who have the time and inclination to burn up the phone lines to MPs, paint slogans on huge signs, and show up as a rabble in front of government offices. They are too busy working and trying to take care of their own families, and that is why they are the tax cows that they are. Honest people and their families lose, the moment that anyone allows a “debate” to occur about where (and on whom) their hard-earned money should be spent.

This is why I can’t stand what happens in government, even when so-called Conservatives are running it. No one stands up for decency and common sense any more, because the direction and operation of government has been framed in such a way that everything, all the money and all the control over people’s lives, is now up for “debate”.

In a fight the winner is always the one who dedicates themselves the most to planning, organizing and fighting. In this debate, by definition, the righteous have no time to prepare their defense and the evildoers have nothing but time (and loads of the righteous people’s money) to prepare their attack.

All I know is that an obscene amount of my income goes toward programs I can never use, benefits I will likely never receive, and people who have never paid into it. A surplus should be an indication to cut taxes. It really is as simple as it sounds.

When you over pay your credit card bill, Visa doesnt donate the surplus to a charity… they send it back. Therefore, surplus federal money should be given back in tax relief or debt reduction. Layton talks about a prosperity gap in canada, how does shipping our excess money over seas improve the lives of canadians.

Layton would definitely open the issue for debate if he were the PM. Definitely. Because he always tries to see both sides.

What an arsehole . A pompous, stupid arsehole.

How’s that for reasoned discourse?

Canadian politicians/a cluster of supurating boils - Think! Ever seen them together? Eh? Eh? Nooooooo.

Unh-unh.

Derek, in my experience if I overpay a credit card bill the company keeps the money to pay off future debt - unless I get on the phone and ask for it back. Of course, if I do ask for it to be returned they try to charge me for the privilege of having it returned.

However, given that we haven’t finished paying off our debt, I don’t feel our payments should decrease. However, I’m open to debate about priorities. If there was a good reason to put more money towards my mortgage or car repairs or my kid’s education or my prescriptions, then I’d want the flexibility to reduce the payments to the credit card bill so that I could cover those other costs.

If we’re going to use credit cards as the analogy, then we must have an outstanding balance on our credit card (analogous to our national debt). In this surplus scenario our credit card’s monthly payment is simply more than this month’s expenses. In that case, the credit card company would simply put your overpayment toward your outstanding balance.

But I don’t think the credit card is a good analogy because: 1) the card holder as an individual can choose what to charge to the card. As a taxpayer or a voter I have next to no say on government spending.

2) the card holder can opt to pay as much or as little they want. Just try withholding your taxes (though, I suppose you are allowed to overpay!)